I gotta say, I wonder about the legality of all this. I mean, I'm sure it's LEGAL, but I also have a feeling that it could be really COMPLICATED, at least based on some comments that Kevin Smith made a little while ago ("We got some lawyers to look at it, and it's a f*****g nightmare to accept donations to make a movie. A tax nightmare, it sounded so good in theory").

Right, but no one saw it and we can't remember what it was called. And for some of us, the idea of the two working together in the first place was a bit strange.

FWIT, Second Chance is by far the best "Christian movie" I've ever seen. Funny, biting, a call for social justice. If only as many churches would play it as played the pabulum of other "Christian movies."

I gotta say, I wonder about the legality of all this. I mean, I'm sure it's LEGAL, but I also have a feeling that it could be really COMPLICATED, at least based on some comments that Kevin Smith made a little while ago ("We got some lawyers to look at it, and it's a f*****g nightmare to accept donations to make a movie. A tax nightmare, it sounded so good in theory").

Given the way movies generally run their finances(by cooking the books so that, for tax purposes, they never make a profit), I'm not surprised that anyone trying the Hollywood method of filmmaking would think it a nightmare.

Now we'll see if Taylor can pull the movie together and actually begin production on the 25th. I find it interesting that the site lists the project location as Nashville. Will it be standing in for Portland?

I hadn’t kept up with the fundraising angle discussed here, but the Atlantic has a good piece on the film’s newly firm financial footing.The movie's inability to fit into a pre-existing category helps explain why Miller and his collaborators had so much trouble coming up with the money to make the film. "You're sort of pissing off both sides," Miller said. "Hollywood hates it because we don't have our head up our ass, and the church hates it because we don't have our head up our ass."

Mike Fleming @ Deadline.com has picked up the story of the film's salvation at the hands of its fans ... and the comments under his post are kind of interesting. One person asks why the $5 million budget couldn't have been cut back to $4.75 million, or whatever the difference would have been after the $250,000 in financing fell through. And at least one other person tries to raise a stink over the supposed devaluation of "associate producer" credits, now that this film will apparently have a thousand of 'em.

Mike Fleming @ Deadline.com has picked up the story of the film's salvation at the hands of its fans ... and the comments under his post are kind of interesting. One person asks why the $5 million budget couldn't have been cut back to $4.75 million, or whatever the difference would have been after the $250,000 in financing fell through. And at least one other person tries to raise a stink over the supposed devaluation of "associate producer" credits, now that this film will apparently have a thousand of 'em.

That post had faulty info -- the budget of the film is under 1 million, not 5 million.